From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,afb4d45672b1e262 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_, then how? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.14.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <7NOdne-iYtWmIafZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@megapath.net> <292bf$443bb4e4$45491254$20549@KNOLOGY.NET> <1oc8e78n8ow5e.1mhfktiyo0wur$.dlg@40tude.net> <_pd0g.5775$yQ.1726@trnddc07> <1x8oeb12n9s76$.1msb6vrl8k885$.dlg@40tude.net> <1145192585.9496.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2429o5my9o4z.lue7cfjzu0nd$.dlg@40tude.net> <1145220834.9496.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:16:59 +0200 Message-ID: <101x2dbllolx8.v6gtakpoa0q4.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Apr 2006 11:16:51 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 5d084ef7.newsread2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=_LcaKd[;Zkdci]h2U0KHceQ5U85hF6f;djW\KbG]kaMhAV6U:Z=fE=o=cc`l48?4He[6LHn;2LCVn[ On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:53:55 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 19:59 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>>Public involvement destroys quality and even common sense. [...] >>> pop-culture /= Public involvement, >> Public involvement is the driving force behind the pop-culture. > > Do you mean "mass consumption" when you speak of public involvement? Yes. >>> and open source does >>> not imply absence of project rules. >>> Open source software does not by itself define how a project >>> is run, obviously. >> >> Exactly > > So you agree that software quality, as affected by project > procedures, is orthogonal to open/closed source? Yes. Open/close is orthogonal to quality. Openness might help in some extraordinary cases, like mass media do with politicians. But it isn't a reliable mechanism for micromanagement on daily basis. >>>> They could become managers, >>>> advocates instead. >>> >>> Could you elaborate a bit how they could do this, and why they >>> would want to do this? >> >> Why shouldn't they? People adapt quickly. Their goals are formed by the >> society. > > Who is society, then? And who forms the goals, as you say? Nobody. It just happens. >> Not wages, but differentiation of according to individual contribution. > > And you think that you attract the best programmers by offering > high wages? That, together with meritocracy, has been shown > to be a myth. Job satisfaction is not guaranteed by just income. That might be true, but you should explain why low or no wages would function better. > The fact that SU professions in high regard could but > achieve a depressingly low standard income has not exactly > turned a physician into someone without education, knowledge, > and practice, has it? It did. The pressure to change the profession wasn't high, because all wages were low. What happened is that positions required higher qualification were assigned according to loyalty. If you consider the history of any scientific or engineering institution in former SU, you will see a slow process of decay as carrier makers elaborated their way up. In two or so generations it was over. > OTOH, with not much more than a little > cleverness, and overcoming certain scrupulous habits, you can > become fairly rich, in spite of producing mostly low quality crap... > So how is quality related to differentiation (and selection) > by income? Wait, this exactly my point. The system allows you to become rich by producing crap. > What are the software quality improvements to be derived > from differentiation by income? (Which I have nothing to say > against.) If you starve, you can't be productive, o.K.. > But other than that, job satisfaction is not just money. Money is a part of satisfaction. In our "capitalistic" society everything is translated into money. I didn't even used this word, I talked about rewarding. Anyway, if you can propose a better social system, which would function, count me in. But in any system a contribution must be rewarded. Use money, natural products, houri, whatever attracts people. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de